It’s a little hard, in this been-there-seen-that era, to grasp what a big deal Bernardo Bertolucci’s Last Tango in Paris was, upon its release in 1972. Indeed, one of my favourite appraisals of the film (though, clearly, not one that I agree with) is by a user named Dave J on the Rotten Tomatoes web site: “To some it’s one of those great films about a husband [played by Marlon Brando] making attempts to get over his wife’s suicide by continually making out with a French escort played by Maria Schneider in which film critics Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars out of 4 and Leonard Maltin giving it 3 and a half out of 4, but if you’re watching it for pure enjoyment, I don’t find anything entertaining to see an wrinkled up overweight man (I don’t care whether or not he’s the greatest actor on earth) making out with a mediocre French actress with hairy armpits.”

But back then, a court in Bologna banned the film on the grounds of “obscene content offensive to public decency… presented with obsessive self-indulgence, catering to the lowest instincts of the libido, dominated by the idea of stirring unchecked appetites for sexual pleasure, permeated by scurrilous language… accompanied off screen by sounds, sighs and shrieks of climax pleasure.” On the liberal side of things, there was Pauline Kael’s New Yorker review: “This must be the most powerfully erotic movie ever made, and it may turn out to be the most liberating movie ever made… [I think those of us who had speculated about erotic movies] had expected artistic blue movies, talented directors taking over from the Schlockmeisters and making sophisticated voyeuristic fantasies that would be gorgeous fun – a real turn-on. What nobody had talked about was a sex film that would churn up everybody’s emotions.”

I’m surprised you’d give a link to that scene – she was pretty much raped during that scene, as she said later – both Bertolucci and Brando never told her that would happen so that a degree of versimilitude of her shock could be captured. As Schneider made clear, the feelings of violation we see onscreen aren’t just acting, they are real, she was actually violated. The poor woman never recovered from the horrors this movie visited on her. I think it’s akin to a snuff film. Would you put up a rape scene from “real life”? why is it okay to put this one up?

Last tango in paris is perhaps the greatest screen performance by an actor, undoubtedly its Brandos greatest. Its closest to what we can refer to as pure genius. I have seen the film several times only to watch his performance. That monologue by his wife’s bedside, the other monologue about his child hood , his great death scene, phew! . every acting moment was a monument to his genius. But the film poisoned brando against investing himself to that extend to a character ever . He swore never to suffer for his art again and decided to do hack jobs for easy paychecks.

Regarding the film itself, i have mixed feelings. when Brando is on screen , its electrifying, but in his absence the film is rather lifeless. But overall i like it, especially Vittorio storaro’s magnificent cinematography. My favorite Bertolucci film remains The conformist . Guess it was an inspiration for Kamal’s Hey Ram , the mixture of sexuality and politics.

I also like 1900 to an extend , even though its a terribly self indulgent film and Bertolucci himself dismissed it later, But its a testament to what the movie mavericks of 70’s were capable and were allowed to do back then

b) I also have to agree with Dave J’s review: I found Last Tango in Paris boring – which is the worst you can say about any film, really. And I wasn’t a huge fan of Lolita, either, because it honestly disgusted me.

c)Am I the only person who finds Marlon Brando an over-hyped ‘actor’? I’ve never ever liked the man, or his acting, finding him the biggest poseur of his time.

Great write up, BR. Good point about the been there done that feeling that one might get today, but LTIP and Lolita left me utterly shocked the first time I viewed them. Lolita remains a deeply uncomfortable work even today and teases the limits of free expression. A recent piece about the enduring allure of Lolita (the book) in the Atlantic

BR, I am sorry, that last video-link had the image of the awful scene, and I assumed, mistakenly, that it was the scene itself. Couldn’t click it (because that scene makes me feel ill) and so, didn’t know it was the interview.

To me, Last Tango in Paris was utterly boring. And few pages of Lolita that i read disgusted me that i refused to read any further. Haven’t seen the movie either.

What is it with most men and their obsession about sex with girl children and barely adult girls (their innocence as well) and imagining it as if it is their greatest romance or love ever? And makes many men write/talk/discuss exhaustively about these obsessions?

Young Woman-Mature Man. Book or Movie or Series is done to death and really, really unpalatable to me.

To me, Last Tango in Paris was utterly boring. And few pages of Lolita that i read disgusted me that i refused to read any further. Haven’t seen the movie either.

What is it with most men and their obsession about sex with girl children and barely adult girls (their innocence as well) and imagining it as if it is their greatest romance or love ever? And makes many men write/talk/discuss exhaustively about these obsessions?

Young Woman-Mature Man. Book or Movie or Series is done to death and really, really unpalatable to me.

i dont think you disagree , you just dont like his style acting or you dont connect with it. that is a different issue. And worse you dont like the man at all. That subjectivity is prejudicing you in accepting an objective analysis purely based on technicalities of screen acting. Thats understandable. Sean penn is considered a great actor.But i find him the most irritating actor ever , i cant stand him on screen. So i cannot objectively analyse his performances

Anyway,In matters of Art,one can find a 100 flaws in Whatever is put forward as the best, if one wishes to.

Brando was a very flawed human being. He was crazy, difficult, food addict , sex addict. he treated women shabbily. but there is also the other Brando,the relentless Liberal champion of the underdog, the One who fought for native american rights, one who walked with King Jr for civil rights, the environmentalist, he was more complex than all the complex characters he played from Col. Kurtz, Paul, Vito corleone,….

“Brando was a very flawed human being. He was crazy, difficult, food addict , sex addict. he treated women shabbily. but there is also the other Brando,the relentless Liberal champion of the underdog, the One who fought for native american rights, one who walked with King Jr for civil rights, the environmentalist, he was more complex than all the complex characters he played from Col. Kurtz, Paul, Vito corleone,….”

i dont think you disagree , you just dont like his style acting or you dont connect with it.

MANK, please do not condescend to me to explain what I agree /disagree with.

a) I think Brando is a damn good actor. (He doesn’t move me, that’s right.)
b) I still disagree that he’s the best. The fact that he was the one actor who so caught public consciousness doesn’t mean there weren’t equally good actors before, during or after him – Paul Muni, John Barrymore, etc.
c) I’m well aware of his fight for the marginalised communities in the US. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that because I said I don’t like the man or his acting, that also means that I cannot – at the same time – respect what his craft or what he stood up for.

Just because I don’t like someone doesn’t mean I feel they are the devil’s spawn. In fact, it is when I dislike someone that I am the most objective. Because I feel that I shouldn’t let my feelings colour my assessment of their talent or good qualities. Yet, it is not hard to respect his work for the Native Americans/Blacks while also at the same time, noting that he was a horrible human being who was rude to his co-stars, juniors and directors, and behaved shabbily with his wives and many children. I can actually hold two contrasting thoughts in my head at the same time. The same way I can accept that Brando was a good actor without having to also say he was the greatest.

Arjun, no less a person than Truman Capote blasted Brando as being a poseur. Didn’t mean that Capote didn’t understand Brando’s talent. Stella Adler, his teacher and someone who loved him dearly, was never sure (when asked) whether he was a great actor or not.

Anu, do you really had to be this aggressive in your reaction. Its really sad that people who know you for a long time are quick to jump to conclusions of condescension when one indulges in some friendly banter. jeez!, i never seem to learn any lessons from my past experiences

Just because I don’t like someone doesn’t mean I feel they are the devil’s spawn.

That is an extreme way of looking at what i said.

In fact, it is when I dislike someone that I am the most objective. Because I feel that I shouldn’t let my feelings colour my assessment of their talent or good qualities

i was talking from my perspective as i clearly mentioned in my comment about Sean Penn. If thats how its with you then fine. agreed

Anyway i wont argue about it anymore. That was a nice wake up call. thanks and peace out

MANK, I will – once again – accept that you didn’t intend to be condescending. But when your comments are [repeatedly] perceived so by people whom you direct them to, perhaps you should also reflect on how you come across. Your response is a bit like saying ‘It was a joke! You’re so sensitive.’ (Disclaimer: just an analogy.)

@Madan, just to clarify – I wasn’t talking about his acting when I said I found Brando a poseur. I can see how that comment can be misinterpreted. Would it make more sense if you read it this way – “I don’t like the man – or his acting – finding him the biggest poseur of his time.”? With ‘finding him…’ as the clause following ‘I don’t like the man…’?

Or more specifically, ‘I don’t like the man, finding him the biggest poseur of his time. I don’t like his acting either.’ Which is how I read it in my mind.

As I said before, Truman Capote also referred to him as a poseur. And I’m sure that Capote didn’t mean his acting talent.

The Duke in his Domain, for all its prose style, is a piece to be read with a certain wit. For it’s is a piece that almost completely omits Capote’s side of the conversation. You never know what prompted Brando to give those answers.

And it doesn’t really matter if Capote considers Brando a Poseur. I mean, Capote, on the basis of In Cold Blood, pretty much considered Perry Smith to be a philosopher. And I am sure Anu Warrier’s good taste would do three backward rolls before she considers a murderer of 4 people a philosopher. So before you blame your education on Capote….

No, I don’t get my education from Capote. I was just saying that I wasn’t the only one to call him a poseur. Happened to have come across Capote’s interview a long time ago and remembered that. Similar to how I remember Stella Adler refusing to comment on her star student’s ‘great’ acting. Ever. And she loved him. He has credited her with teaching him all he knows.

The point was, and I reiterate – I grew up with these movies, and with that same feeling of Brando’s greatness as an actor. I mean, everyone told me he was the greatest, and everyone had to be right. Right? So I wondered why it was that he often left me cold, why his acting never resonated with me. Oh, I could respect his craft, but that’s all it was. (Disclaimer: To me.)

As I grew older and my horizons widened to envelop a wider cinematic experience than Hollywood, I realised that I could accept that someone was a great actor (and he is, without doubt, very, very talented) without necessarily beatifying him as the ‘greatest actor’ since sliced bread.

My problems with him are instinctive, inherent, from the man he portrayed himself to be. From reading his interviews, and from listening to him in interviews. (Lest anyone say I was misreading his tone in print.) I found him unbearable. A poseur.

You disagree that he was a poseur? That’s fine. I’ve no beef with that. And you’re right – it absolutely doesn’t matter if Capote thought him a poseur. It matters even less that I do as well.

But perceptions are subjective, and my viewpoint is as valid as yours, even if it doesn’t mesh with the majority view. I’m fine with being thought ignorant because I don’t agree that Marlon Brando is the best actor in the world.

And if your comment to me was sarcastic, feel free to ignore this entire response.

“Brando is a damn good actor. (He doesn’t move me, that’s right.)”
“…he is, without doubt, very, very talented”
Brando’s acting doesn’t move you…then why do you consider him a “damn good actor”?!

“I still disagree that he’s the best”, “I don’t agree that Marlon Brando is the best actor in the world” & “…without necessarily beatifying him as the ‘greatest actor’ since sliced bread”
These statements make sense. Not the greatest, fine.

But statements like “damn good actor”, “very very talented” but doesn’t move you…sounds odd. It begs the question, if an actor doesn’t move the audience, is he good (at acting)?

@vinjk, I don’t know if I should even bother given your comment about ‘ignorant contrarian’ but still – an actor can be technically perfect at his craft and he still may not connect with a section of the audience.

I know many people who don’t like Kamal Hassan. He just doesn’t move them. Does that mean he’s not a great actor? Or take away from his immense talent?

I’ve steadfastly said that while I don’t like Brando, I respect his craft. I think he’s a good actor. I just don’t think he’s the ‘best’ or the ‘greatest’. What’s ignorant about this position? Or contrarian?

In order to not be ignorant, am I supposed to genuflect in front of his stated greatness?

MANK said earlier: Sean penn is considered a great actor.But i find him the most irritating actor ever.

So MANK ‘doesn’t connect’ with Sean Penn as an actor. Does that mean Penn is not a good actor? Does having that opinion make MANK an ignorant contrarian too? Or is that pejorative only restricted to someone who doesn’t believe in Brando being ‘the best’?

Something similar happens to me with Meryl Streep. I can “see” her acting, and it doesn’t move me at all. I can see the effort, and acting (for me) works only when it crosses these “technical” flourishes and reaches an emotional and/or intellectual plane.

So I would call Streep… a great technical actress (who really knows the tools of the trade) but one who does little for me (because she is so obvious). She’s like an opera singer who really knows all about breath control and phrasing but cannot “sell” the emotion behind an aria.

Brando, on the other hand, attains that emotional and/or intellectual plane — for me.

Even in a film as odd as Burn or Reflections in a Golden Eye, there are moments that sneak past the ‘logical’ part of my brain and go straight to the heart. His choices are always unexpected and interesting.

vijnk: While I agree that an actor’s ultimate test is whether he moves the audience, it would be a mistake one’s own like or dislike is reflective of the audience at large. When an actor like Brando has won the admiration of the audience as well as the critics, we have to at least see whether he does possess acting ability (irrespective of whether the ability affects us). If you can make an objective case for why Brando lacks acting ability, great. Otherwise it means he is a great actor whose work just happens not to resonate with you. It’s like opera leaves me completely cold but I would never say Pavarotti was not a great singer.

Why some men and women like or love a supposedly bad person inspite of knowing that person is wrong? Same way when we like some actors with a bad history. We sort of like them and their work though with some reservations. We give benefit of doubt and make their sins appear not so bad. It is a difficult choice. Can we judge a person based on evidence available in public domain? Is it fair judgment? Some psychologically unstable persons have this dual personality. They are good and bad. They can harm themselves by their actions and harm others too. The problem starts when they are talented and achieve great success. They will be judged.

If we acknowledge an actor as very good or good, we at some point like their work. Without liking at some point, we cant acknowledge that he or she is a good actor. If we acknowledge that mango is tasty and we dont like mango, it sounds strange. We can say mango is not tasty and so we dont like it. Or we can say that mango is considered tasty but we dont like it.

// From reading his interviews, and from listening to him in interviews. //

This is a subject that I have constantly pondered about. And of all artists, it relates to the actor the most. I think real, great screen actors, when they are doing their best work, operate at the level of the ‘unconscious’ (Writing when it’s really good works this way too). Of the Indian actors now, I can say this probably about Fahadh Faasil — that when he’s really good, he constantly transcends ‘states’ and goes deeper without settling down at one place. You can see that in something like a Thondimuthalum.

Brando at his very best, as in Last Tango, achieved this (Now I am assuming you know that most of that character was born out of ‘structured improvisation’), and he probably achieved it more times than any other actor. In Last Tango, he’s opening his vein not to bring to you a noble, decent man but to humanise the template of the ‘old pervert.’ To me that is art!

And it can be felt primarily in your gut — it’s not ‘moving’ in the whole Ishaan-Awasthi-hugging-Aamir-Khan sort of way. No!

This is also precisely why most great actors have difficulty explaining ‘stuff’, not just explaining ‘acting stuff’ but talking about say ‘social issues.’ More often when a great actor tries to talk about something like that, she oversimplifies it (Like Brando did), or she become taciturn (Like De Niro often seems in interviews).

Most great actors hate talking about acting stuff, because they lose a big part of them playing those characters. And most importantly because what they do as actors in their best screen roles, the essence of their craft, is located in a very supra-rational, pre-verbal zone.

So I come to the core point — there is a difference between artistic intelligence and B-school intelligence. Karan Johar’s articulation skills is B-School intelligence. Prithviraj talking about his movies, explaining eloquently about how he’s planning to outdo Hollywood or whatever, is B-school intelligence. But artistic intelligence is something completely different — it often belongs to those stammerers and stutterers and those who trail off in the middle of a sentence..

@anu, @brangan, @madan
The effect of acting is a very subjective matter. Is there an objective test to measure the acting ability of a person? I think, I am really unsure, the answer is no.
When a director explains the situation to an actor and how he expects it to be enacted, does he enact how exactly he wants it to be and ensure the actor replicates it? I think not.
I think the only measure we, as audience and critic, can use is whether the acting is affecting us.
My question to Anu was why does she consider Brando a great actor when it doesn’t affect her.
May be like Brangan says I need the acting to reach the “emotional and/or intellectual phase”. Until this point, I never knew mere “technical actors” is considered great actors. I always believed people called them great because their acting affects them in some way.

@anu
“MANK said earlier: Sean penn is considered a great actor.But i find him the most irritating actor ever.
So MANK ‘doesn’t connect’ with Sean Penn as an actor. Does that mean Penn is not a good actor? Does having that opinion make MANK an ignorant contrarian too? Or is that pejorative only restricted to someone who doesn’t believe in Brando being ‘the best’?”

@madan
“If you can make an objective case for why Brando lacks acting ability, great. Otherwise it means he is a great actor whose work just happens not to resonate with you. It’s like opera leaves me completely cold but I would never say Pavarotti was not a great singer.”

You don’t have to say he is not great. You can say he is not great for you. Just because others say he is great doesn’t mean he has to be great. There are many people who adore writings of Jhumpa Lahiri. But I couldn’t feel anything in her book. So do I say she is a great writer because people around me are saying it?
Also one key difference between acting and singing/writing is the art of singing/writing has a clear theoretical foundation which I think is not present in acting.

@Sreehari: Absolutely and this holds true for many artists. They are just unable to express themselves in a ‘normal ‘ way. King Crimson is one of my favourite bands but Robert Fripp’s interviews sound so pretentious, so abstract you will end up hating his work if you listen to him speak. So better not to consume these interviews or at least take them with a pinch of salt. There are those who are brilliant artistically and also good speakers but they are rare. And they are typically performers rather than composers /creators. It’s possible that Brando immerses himself so much in the role that he kind of writes the role for himself, within the boundaries set by the filmmaker.

vinjk: The simple — and only — answer to your question is that the ‘evaluation’ of every art (literature, painting, music, movies) is subjective. BUT that only takes care of one part of the process: the “did it work for me” question.

There’s still the aspect of how well someone does something, which is beyond “did it work for me?” And if you take the art seriously, you will recognise/acknowledge that aspect.

We ARE capable of holding two (apparently) contradictory opinions at the same time. (eg. for me, (1) Meryl Streep does these amazing technical things, BUT (2) she isn’t able to make them reach an emotional or intellectual space).

(2) is where the evaluation is coming from, but that doesn’t mean (1) is untrue.

She’s like an opera singer who really knows all about breath control and phrasing but cannot “sell” the emotion behind an aria.

Ha ha, we have already battled over Meryl before :). thing about Meryl streep for me is exactly the opposite of the Sean Penn thing. I like everything about Meryl . her face, her voice, her body language , her every quirk,every shtick. meaning totally smitten with her. Again that wouldn’t make me the right guy to objectively analyse her.There are films where i can see the technique, she is trying too hard, like in sophie’s choice . The different voice, the different look, the accent. She is more celebrated for those kinds of performances. But the films i like her the best is where she isnt overdoing the technical thing , her most normal performances, thats where she is the greatest. 3 of her best acting moments for me

The Deer Hunter : It was Meryl’s first major film and she had a supporting part. The scene is where De niro comes home after the war. his friends including Meryl has been waiting for him , but he refuses to go in until everybody has gone and then he chose to enter the house when Meryl is all alone. that moment from her sitting alone , hearing the knock and opening the door and seeing Deniro, her expression, her body language, everything changes and her voice breaks when she calls him Oh Michael, its just there for a second or two but never seen a more magical moment on screen

French lieutenant’s women : The first meryl streep film i saw and my favorite streep performance. That one monologue she delivers to Jeremy Irons describing her lover and their romance. She is constructing an elaborate lie here, but she convinces Irons of the truthfulness of her romantic tale even as she drops enough hints to the audience that she is lying

Bridges of madison county : Meryl’s Francesca has just met Clint Eastwood’s wandering photographer. As a southern middle class, middle aged wife she is trying hard not to be swept off her feet by Clint’s charm. This moment is just brilliant, how she brings out the hidden desires of her character and the negation of it when she gets caught

Even in a film as odd as Burn or Reflections in a Golden Eye, there are moments that sneak past the ‘logical’ part of my brain and go straight to the heart. His choices are always unexpected and interesting

Yup, Both performances are an oasis in Brando’s 60’s barren desert Burn was Brando’s personal favorite. it doesnt have any big actorly moments . but his performance is terrific, as he plays the immoral manipulator William walker. And in reflections – and was it the first instance where a top tier movie star played a closet gay character? – His mirror scene was an inspiration for the more famous one by De niro in taxi driver.And this scene here is simply phenomenal

Karan Johar’s articulation skills is B-School intelligence. Prithviraj talking about his movies, explaining eloquently about how he’s planning to outdo Hollywood or whatever, is B-school intelligence. But artistic intelligence is something completely different — it often belongs to those stammerers and stutterers and those who trail off in the middle of a sentence..

Sreehari, superb comment. Guess you can add Mohanlal too to the list of De niros and others , who is not able to explain their process .

MANK: Not fair. You can’t take her really great performances (I’d include Kramer vs Kramer and Silkwood) and make a case for her 😛 You have to talk about Cry in the Dark and Ironweed and especially August: Osage County (the horror, the horror 😉 )

vinjk: It’s like this for all arts. If you know the grammar of Carnatic music, you can say someone’s doing some great things and yet find the performance itself “cold.” I’m saying the two things (a certain kind of technical talent that deserves respect and the ability to connect emotionally/intellectually) are not necessarily connected.

vijnk : The answer to your question lies in the subjective framework itself. So when a highly regarded actor doesn’t do it for you, you can just say you don’t really like his style. You absolutely don’t HAVE to say he is a great actor just because people say so. But when you question whether he is indeed such a great actor, you should be able to provide a basis other than your personal dislike. Otherwise it sounds like you think you are a better arbiter of greatness than the rest of the world. To be clear, I mean a figurative you.

While at the surface level, singing has a theoretical /technical basis, it is again not the only criterion. Karen Carpenter didn’t have amazing range or power for instance but had magnificent phrasing and was regarded as one of the greatest pop singers of all times. Which is a little more subjective, phrasing that is (but something that singers get when they talk about it). Rather, we can sometimes hear where a singer is great by technical parameters but somehow find ourselves unable to connect to it. For an actor you could look at modulation or body language as markers of whether they are able to act. CAN Brando act the hell out of a role? Absolutely. But everyone may not connect to it. As BR put it, this compartmentalisation requires engaging seriously with the art form and being inquisitive about it over and above the kinda consumerist purpose of whether it entertains you. A great writer, singer or actor can teach you about the art form, is how I would put it.

You have to talk about Cry in the Dark and Ironweed and especially August: Osage County (the horror, the horror

Ha haaaaa. no arguments there. But come on ,you judge an artist by her best work no?. ok i can suggest moments from falling in love, death becomes her, river wild and so on which are not considered her greatest. But You wouldnt judge Kamalahaasan by dasavatharam or aalavandhan now would you? :).

Thanks, BR, for vocalising what I thought and felt better than I seemingly did.

@vinjk: About what MANK will say about Sean Penn, you would have to ask him.
About Brando, for the last time, all I said was that I didn’t consider him the best or the greatest. I. Not that ‘He’s not the greatest because I say so!’ The argument here was about making me ‘see’ his greatness. I still don’t.

And BR explained better what I meant when I said ‘He’s a damn good actor but he still leaves me cold.” I can – objectively – see that he’s a good actor; he’s ticking off all the right boxes. But – subjectively – his performance itself does nothing for me. To me, that’s neither contradictory nor contrarian. YMMV.

MANK : It’s natural tendency that once somebody doesn’t like an artist, he/she will single out the artist’s worst moments for criticism. Nice that you mentioned Falling In Love. Both she and RDN were cast against type, especially the latter, but did a great job and made it much more than a run of the mill movie. Streep, apart from having technical perfection and versatility like Helen Mirren, also has a certain star like flamboyance which is rare in actors’ actors. She can use that to give a whole set of quirks and mannerisms to a fictional character. She did this particularly well with Miranda Presley in Devil Wears Prada.

The technicality that you both mention, where does it come from? Who or what defines it? In the sense, what makes you say that a certain performance is technically good/correct? What is the reference point for it ?

Sorry, too many questions but fundamentally it’s one question I suppose 🙂

Easwar: NOW you have opened a can of worms. That is, I can tell you about that which obeys Newton’s law but I cannot break down how Newton’s law works.

Well at least in music it is observed since centuries that only a certain combination of notes is consonant and therefore melodic. Change one note there and it will be dissonant. Wait, dissonance too can be melodic but within again a framework. In film music, Rojavai Thalatum Thendral, Partha Vizhi (Guna) are good examples of this melodic dissonance. You can cite Schoenberg and say music can be wholly atonal and yet be, well, music. But in what 80 years since his time, we have still not found a way to accommodate atonality in entirety in popular music. Therefore popular music has to subscribe to these melodic (and harmonic) patterns. These have to a large extent been codified into a structural framework in classical music. Who made the rules right at the beginning though? I don’t know but I know that I have a natural sense of pitch and what sounds sonorous (as opposed to good /bad for my taste) to me or many others who aren’t tone deaf conforms EXACTLY to the rules. I have never heard of two singers debating whether a note is sung off key for instance. And a singer doesn’t even have to be trained to possess this pitch sense. I am not, for instance.

Pitch is of course just the very fundamental aspect and there’s much more. Whether a singer’s technique is sustainable or not. For eg, Idina Menzel has had all sorts of problems trying to sing the climactic note of Let It Go in performances BECAUSE the original note in the recording itself has too much chest. There are also aspects like softness or harshness of attack, clarity of diction, etc.

I can’t do a similar breakdown for acting as I cannot articulate the different aspects in detail. Ask BR Saar.

Madan, Agreed about Meryl. She possess the mystique and luminosity of an old fashioned movie star like Garbo or Ingrid Bergman and also the classiness of a great theatrical actress like a Kate Hepburn or Helen mirren. Falling in love was a modern adaptation of Brief Encounter with a happy ending or a more appropriate ending befitting the 80s. Meryl was really good in that film. And it was fun to see De niro and Harvey Keitel- the 2 stars of the gritty new Hollywood starring in an old fashioned romantic melodrama

Meryl was always good in comedy. If you’ve seen in her in Woody Allen’s Manhattan or she devil. Post
the success of Prada, she got more opportunities in comic roles. Julie and Julia, It’s complicated,,……, She was great in each one of them

The main difference between Brando and Streep was the passion for the craft. Brando lost his passion for acting by his 40s while Meryl , who is close to 70 still soldiers on , being prolific as ever,trying out different roles

Madan, I would say BMK broke that framework and made consonant and dissonant notes so melodic together not only by his 3 note and 4 note ragams but also by his constant experimentation and forays into uncharted territories when singing alapana for example. His voice technique combines all aspects that you have mentioned but also has a fresh and original approach. For example, if I listen to a Mumbai concert from 1962 with MSG and TVG, I don’t feel myself being transported to the past, but firmly staying put and imagining it as if it is being performed in front of me today. Looking back on his career, I’m amazed that he could easily sustain it until his passing.

Jayram: That is another great example and Raja himself said that BMK can sing microtones like nobody else. Again, though, the problem remains – it works only in the context of Carnatic music. While classical music is thought of as traditional and staid, it actually offers a very fertile ground for experimentation because it approaches music as a playground of ideas whereas popular music is forced to approach it purely as a means of emotional expression that accesses a large audience (hence the emphasis on simplicity).

Regardless, I agree that in theory any amount of dissonance could still be MUSICAL (to differentiate it from my earlier word melodic). But I purposely did not mention it because such levels of dissonance are best negotiated by masters of the craft who construct some order out of the ostensible madness. Now this here piece is clearly just pure dissonance that descends into noise devoid any musicality.

Once we make the generalisation that any amount of dissonance is still music, we will not be able to say that there is such a thing as ‘not music’. But there is such a thing as that, as the above example shows. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say anything CAN be music IF the artist knows how to use his tools. But there is still a requirement of knowing. It is still a craft, a set of skills as opposed to a pure, raw, unadulterated emotional venting. A guy who cannot carry a tune in a bucket yelling into the mic does not constitute music. Who defines this? Some people did at some point back in the day but really this is just something that seems to be hardwired in us. We have an innate sense of what is musical. The more challenging music requires a more open mind to understand why some patterns make more sense than we might think they do. But a pattern still exists.

So would it be appropriate to say that the technical aspect is still subjective but subjectiveness shared by a larger number of people which eventually became an unsaid rule. So in art appreciation is objectiveness someone else’s subjectivity? Like, in a society, the unsaid rules which is approved by a good number of people eventually becomes what is appropriate and inappropriate in that culture. When we say someone is a good person, it is more about the subjectiveness of that particular society rather than an objective qualifier.

As you say the brain probably has a default appreciation for certain type of musical pattern. This appreciation is, again speculating, shared by a large number of people, with some variations, resulting in many humans to appreciate similar patterns without having to be have learnt to appreciate. And when one gets further exposure he starts developing the capability to appreciate complex patterns.

Vilayanur S Ramachandran, in his Reith Lecture titled, The Artful Brain, touches upon how and why Human Brain appreciates visual arts. The whole lecture is fascinating. I am wondering if something like this is what happening with respect to our appreciation for Music and Movies as well.

“In other words human artists through trial and error, through intuition, through genius have discovered the figural primitives of our perceptual grammar. They are tapping into these and creating for your brain… And what you end up with is a Henry Moore or a Picasso.“

Eswar: Thanks not only for a though provoking response but also for sharing a brilliant article. Third point made me go yikes; I know exactly what he means!

“So would it be appropriate to say that the technical aspect is still subjective but subjectiveness shared by a larger number of people which eventually became an unsaid rule. ” – The way I would put it is technique comes into the picture in the EXECUTION of the artistic performance/creation rather in its reception by the audience. This is much more obvious in the performing arts than the fine arts and much more so when the performance has to be spontaneous and one take (theater, live bands) rather than constructed from several takes (movies, studio bands like Carpenters/Beatles). What I am saying is one may or may not like say John Petrucci ripping through shred guitar at some ridiculous speed. But that it requires technique to play like that is indisputable and Kirk Hammett does not possess the technique to play like that. On similar lines, it is indisputable that Rafi could sing complicated melismas (called harkats/sangidhis in our music) that were simply beyond Kishore. That is, Rafi IS a technically better singer than Kishore. This is an objectively demonstrable fact because Rafi possessed skills beyond Kishore’s grasp. Now, is a technically better singer also better per se? No! Is there an objective framework to establish who is better in every which way? No. There is no answer to that question except to say one singer agrees more with your taste than another. So I want to dispel the myth that a technically better artistic product is better per se also. No, a poignant film shot by an amateur on hand held camera can be better than a very professionally put together but shallow one. But, to also echo what BR said here and has often said elsewhere, for those interested in the technical aspect of art, what IS going on technically CAN be interesting even if the film/piece of music is otherwise pretty meh or whatever.

” When we say someone is a good person, it is more about the subjectiveness of that particular society rather than an objective qualifier.” – Agreed but I think I have addressed that above. The technical side of art resides in a complete separate domain from the value assigned to it for its capacity to engage (which is subjective and usually very individual too).

I think the talk addresses more the question of the boundaries of art and I agree with the speaker there that it is decided by a combination of evolutionary hard wired patterns that are universal and cultural norms. Unlike the speaker, though, I want the cultural diversity to survive and thrive. To riff on point 3, it makes say music more interesting when a marriage of Indian and Western music is thought of as difficult rather than if it is regarded as passe. That is kind of the problem with the popular music scene today. Most musicians have decided that there is nothing new left to uncover in music. Raja used to say the same too. The difference is there are always different patterns to uncover within this same old same old and when that doesn’t happen and the music conforms to a comforting norm, it gets staid. Though all this ironically applies more to the Western music scene than it does to our own; we are behind the curve as usual and in the current day that is a good thing.

Glad you enjoyed the lecture. The other lectures by him in that series are good as well.

I think I see your point about technicality in execution. I am going to use an example to illustrate my understanding. This example is probably contrived and also may be inaccurate.

In cooking, to spice up a food with chilli powder, the chilli powder is to be added in an earlier stage and should be cooked for the food to absorb the spice. If the chilli powder is added after the cooking is done, the chilli powder stands out. It does not gel with the food. So there is a technique here, that is to add the chilli powder earlier. This technique is not exactly subjective because the chilli powder does not blend for any one unless additional techniques employed. Importantly it is not probably codified anywhere. So when someone tastes this food and says that the technique used to spice up this food is bad, it’s also not exactly subjective because the taste of the chilli powder stands out.

Now to appreciate that this technique is bad, the taster should know at least two things. a) able to differentiate the taste of absorbed and unblended chilli powder in a dish b) the technique to blend the chilli powder while cooking. When one is not aware of either of these, he wouldn’t know a) the chilli powder is not mixed b) that it is because of the technique. And if he have never had a blended spicy food, this dish wouldn’t taste any lesser. To such a person, someone complaining that the spice is standing out and that there is a problem in the technique sounds subjective. The distinction between the technique, the appreciation of the technique and the appreciation of the outcome(taste of the food) of the technique all collapses. Resulting into broadly classifying the entire thing as subjective and missing any underlying nuances.

If I draw a parallel to our conversation, to appreciate a technique in an art form like music or acting one should have some understanding of the technique or framework, as you call it, within which it is performed. Without that knowledge one may be able to appreciate the outcome of the technique but not the technique itself. To them the technique is non existent. And anyone calling out that there is a technique behind sounds subjective. This is probably where the confusion lies for people like me.

Coming back to my food example, if few generations of people grow up only by eating the food where chilli powder is added at the end. And when they have developed a liking for it. Then, to both the cook and the taster, the correct technique for spicy food is to add chilli powder in the end. That is to say, the technique could feed off from the outcome and the taste of the people and morph itself even into something exactly opposite to what it was before. Now is this morphed technique objective? Probably yes for that particular generation. But an younger generation who has found a newer taste and by which a newer technique might find it subjective and kick start the whole debate again 🙂.

” to appreciate a technique in an art form like music or acting one should have some understanding of the technique or framework, as you call it, within which it is performed. Without that knowledge one may be able to appreciate the outcome of the technique but not the technique itself. To them the technique is non existent. And anyone calling out that there is a technique behind sounds subjective. This is probably where the confusion lies for people like me.” – Perfect. That is pretty much what I am trying to express. I kind of agree with the last para as well though there are limitations to how much you can reinvent the wheel in terms of technique. It is easier to do that with concept, like Schoenberg experimenting with atonality which in a sense would appear to take music back to where it came from before it evolved melodically. But the physical technique of playing a piano or guitar or indeed vocalising notes cannot change too dramatically and instead musicians have added to the existing body of technique. So, for instance, high notes for a tenor were usually sung in a kind of falsetto in the 19th century but Pavarotti (among many others) was belting them out gloriously in full voice. If a contemporary tenor would resort to singing them in falsetto again, he would likely be thought of as not technically accomplished enough for the role.

To use an example of technique from acting now, one of my favourite scenes from one of my favourite movies:

Look at the range of pitches, volumes and textures Ned Beatty uses within this monologue. There’s some fry (or you could call it distortion) when he yells out, “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature” and then drops to a whisper as he later lists down the then big corps of USA. There’s a snarky, contemptuous but still soft tone with a darker colour coming in when he adds, “It’s been that way since man crawled out of slime”. Through all this, he does not lose diction in the slightest; every word can be understood without subtitles.

So…can I imagine a Keanu Reeves being able to execute this scene? No way. Yes, he has good looks and a boyish charm that poor Beatty for all his monstrous acting chaps never had. But that also influences casting decisions in turn. That is, you will only see Reeves in films like Speed that won’t expose him. His occasionally miscast turns like FFC’s Dracula have served as sufficient warning to filmmakers not to meddle with the acting ability of Reeves. BECAUSE directors, esp in Hollywood, are usually careful with casting, we don’t fully appreciate this happening but Beatty is basically playing the kind of role for which he has the necessary skill set and which is beyond an attractive but technically limited actor like Reeves.

I just used Reeves, by the way, as a very obvious and indisputable counter-example to make the point. There are a number of even well regarded actors who would likely stumble trying to execute something like Beatty here.

About chilli powder or mirch powder. I add mirch powder when the sabji or whatever is half cooked. Not at the beginning. Only little turmeric powder in the beginning along with the seasoning. I do not want the flavour of the concerned vegetable lost and so minimum turmeric, chilli powder and salt. Less masala and oil. Prefer to use green chillies for flavour and taste.

I came across a couple of wonderful clips detailing how Lumet got the best out of his cast for Network. Will post them later but anyway, turns out Beatty was not the first choice for the role but that whoever was chosen didn’t shape up and had to be replaced. Beatty prepared for his cameo at 3 days notice. Confirms my hunch that this brief role was a difficult one to execute because it can easily get too over the top. There is the hint of a wink in his delivery which lets us know it is satirical.